Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

44 Mich. 399

McElroy v. Hatheway

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided October 20, 1880

Michigan Supreme Court · decided 1880-10-20

<p>Accounting by executor in equity — -Residuary legatee’s bond.</p> <p>"Where a residuarjr legatee has given bond, as executor, to pay the testator’s debts and legacies, a surety on his bond cannot maintain a bill in equity against him. and the co-sureties for an accounting for assets of the estate, the appointment of a receiver, and an administration of the estate by the chancery court.</p> <p>A surety is presumed to assume Ms responsibility deliberately, and if liis principal fails to meet Ms own obligation with due diligence, he cannot appeal to a court of equity for protection, but must first perform his obligation as surety, and may then sue at law for indemnity.</p> <p>Where a residuary legatee is made executor, and gives bond to pay his testator’s debts and legacies, the assets of the estate become part of Ms general property, and no more subject to the enforcement of a trust in favor of other legatees.</p>

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““No such bill can be maintained. The court has no jurisdiction to override the title of a residuary legatee in the way and on the grounds set forth, and the complainant has mistaken his remedy, if he has any. There may be cases, no doubt, when the court, proceeding in accordance with its own maxims, and keeping within the limits given to it in this State, would find some way for relieving the surety by hastening the principal, and preventing him from using his opportunity to oppress and defraud his surety.””

quoted by 2 later decisions, including Vosburgh v. Middleditch, Lafferty v. People's Savings Bank

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1880-10-20

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently June 1921

1 district · 5 state decisions

3018801890190019101920decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Graves J.

¶1In December, 1871, complainant joined as surety with the defendants Quimby and Hooker on the bond given by defendant Hatheway pursuant to the statute as executor and residuary legatee under the will of his father, Gilbert Hatheway, then lately deceased, and about a year ago he filed this bill against his principal and co-sureties for discovery and relief in equity.

¶2The final purpose of the bill is to transfer the whole remedial jurisdiction over the settlement of the estate from the court of probate to the court of chancery, and to compel, by the authority of the latter court, the executor and residuary legatee and the co-sureties to discover and trace from the death of the testator to the present time all parts of the estate, and through a receiver to enforce an absolute surrender by the executor and legatee, of the whole assets to the court in order that it may assume to conduct the administration to final settlement. No such bill can be maintained. The court has no jurisdiction to override the title of a residuary legatee in the way and on the grounds set forth and the complainant has mistaken his remedy if he has any.

¶3There may be cases no doubt when the court, proceeding *401in accordance with its own maxims and keeping within the limits given to it in this State, would find some way for ■relieving the surety by hastening the principal and preventing him from using his opportunity to oppress and defraud his surety.

¶4The present bill proceeds on a theory altogether different, .and it was properly dismissed.

/44/mich/399 · .json · Public domain